False promise of marriage: Madras High Court says courts should ensure law is not misused against men

Courts are duty-bound to ensure that innocent men are not victimised when it comes to cases of rape on promise of marriage, the Madras High Court said..When dealing with cases pertaining to sex on false promise of marriage, courts have a two-fold duty to not just protect the women, but also to ensure that innocent men are not victimized by “vicious women folk,” the Court underscored.In an order passed on June 21, Justice M Dhandapani set aside the conviction of one Rahul Gandhi (not to be confused with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi), charged under Sections 375 (rape), 376 (punishment for rape)s, 90 (consent given under fear or misconception) and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court said that the victim’s testimony of Gandhi having sexually assaulted her on false promise of marriage did not hold true in the present case.The Court went on to say that while cases of sexual assault against women in India were on the rise, it was the duty of the courts to “separate the grain from the chaff while analysing evidence.”.“However, it cannot be lost sight of that under the pretext of false promises, women are wrongly utilised in various acts, including the act of eternal submission to satisfy the carnal and physical desires of the opposite gender, even with their consent and in many cases against their wish, either by sugar coated words or by brute force. But not always, it is to be stated that, it is only the male who misuse the women folk, but in the legal conundrum, vicious persons belonging to the female folk, do misuse the law to their advantage and, therefore, in cases of such nature, the duty cast on the court is two-fold, not only to see that women are not misused but equally, the law is not misused against the male folk as well,” the High Court said..The case against Gandhi was that he had forced a woman he loved, to have sexual intercourse with him on the promise that he would marry her. However, the High Court noted that when the alleged incident took place, Gandhi was already married and the victim knew about the same. Therefore, misconception of marriage was not a possibility in the present case as the victim was already aware of the existing marriage, the Court said.The Court also noted that there was no material to show that Gandhi knew that the victim was “subjecting herself only to the misconception that the appellant would marry her.” Since the victim was a consenting party to the sexual act, the act would not attract Section 375 of the IPC, the Court said while allowing Gandhi’s appeal..Advocate R Karthik appeared for the appellant in the case. Additional Public Prosecutor GV Kasthuri appeared for the respondent State.